On Thursday 11 December 2008 19:15:06 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:53:00 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
And if they do, the code should fail gracefully, i. e. print some
friendly error message like that S-ATA is not available.
in this case, i think
On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:57:37 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
In message 200812111624.20543.vap...@gentoo.org you wrote:
it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me
users
And we still want to have it automatic, just deferred.
of your board are incapable of looking
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during boot,
make the user manually run sata init. This brings the SATA subsystem in
line with common U-Boot policy.
Along these lines, the is_sata_supported() hook is no longer needed, so
scrub it from the tree.
Signed-off-by: Mike
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:18:36 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
diff --git a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c b/board/freescale/
mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
index 2b17612..ada8020 100644
--- a/board/freescale/mpc8536ds/mpc8536ds.c
+++
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
boot,
make the user manually run sata init. This brings the SATA
subsystem in
line with common U-Boot policy.
On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
boot,
make the user manually run sata init. This brings the
On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 2:03 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 11:17:56 Kumar Gala wrote:
On Dec 11, 2008, at 4:32 AM, Mike Frysinger wrote:
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during
boot,
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
'sata init' isn't safe. It seems like you should only be able to call
it once. However I think we can keep issuing it and cause bad things
to happen.
i dont think so. the SATA driver should be doing the right
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 15:51:32 Kumar Gala wrote:
'sata init' isn't safe. It seems like you should only be able to call
it once. However I think we can keep issuing it and cause bad things
to happen.
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:16:12 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:01:33 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be
attempting to use it. if they do, that's their fault for doing
Mike Frysinger wrote:
it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me users
of your board are incapable of looking at it and going hmm, this has a SATA
disk ? it isnt like disks are tiny and they have to scan a board for some
obscure IC. disks are friggin huge.
It
On Thursday 11 December 2008 16:36:12 Scott Wood wrote:
Mike Frysinger wrote:
it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me
users of your board are incapable of looking at it and going hmm, this
has a SATA disk ? it isnt like disks are tiny and they have to scan a
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 1228991549-11486-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org you wrote:
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically during boot,
make the user manually run sata init. This brings the SATA subsystem in
line with common U-Boot policy.
I agree with
On Dec 11, 2008, at 5:18 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 1228991549-11486-1-git-send-email-vap...@gentoo.org you
wrote:
Rather than have the board code initialize SATA automatically
during boot,
make the user manually run sata init. This brings the SATA
Dear Kumar Gala,
In message 3b24dcfa-1309-4b92-a4ae-d9943d332...@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
and ...), so it isnt a big deal imo. i asked if Wolfgang wanted it
automated
and he preferred making the user do it themselves.
This seems backwards to me..
ACK here.
'sata init' isn't
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 200812111556.23044.vap...@gentoo.org you wrote:
Also, in the code you removed we do a runtime check on 8536 to see if
SATA is even available. That check is still valid.
why ? if the hardware doesnt support it, then the user shouldnt be
attempting
to
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 200812111607.10866.vap...@gentoo.org you wrote:
having init_sata() be automatic though would prevent hotplugging ... but
maybe
people dont care about that ...
No - if you also allow to run sata init manually. the thing is that
it just should be done
Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message 200812111624.20543.vap...@gentoo.org you wrote:
it made sense when the init step was automatic. but you're telling me users
And we still want to have it automatic, just deferred.
of your board are incapable of looking at it and going hmm, this has a SATA
Dear Kumar,
In message 29e3d6bf-aa38-40c3-ac21-87dcbbb82...@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
I agree with Kumare - having to run sata init manually is annoying.
Sorry for the bodus 'e' here.
We should auto-run it upon the first sata command if it hasn't been
called before (but still
On Dec 11, 2008, at 6:01 PM, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
Dear Kumar,
In message 29E3D6BF-AA38-40C3-
ac21-87dcbbb82...@kernel.crashing.org you wrote:
I agree with Kumare - having to run sata init manually is
annoying.
Sorry for the bodus 'e' here.
We should auto-run it upon the first sata
Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 11 December 2008 18:53:00 Wolfgang Denk wrote:
And if they do, the code should fail gracefully, i. e. print some
friendly error message like that S-ATA is not available.
in this case, i think that's up to the controller. i.e. the controller
doesnt
find
21 matches
Mail list logo
